Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Victoria Government Gazette

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn per strong Keep consensus (non-admin closure) // Timothy :: talk 02:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Government Gazette[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not meet WP:GNG. The subject lacks multiple independent secondary sources providing significant coverage. Per WP:SIGCOV: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". WP:BEFORE revealed no additional WP:RS that addresses the subject directly and in-depth that would establish notability. The article does not provide encyclopedic content and meets WP:NOTEVERYTHING. // Timothy :: talk 19:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 19:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We have articles on similar publications for sub-national units in other Commonwealth countries. See, e.g., Kerala Gazette, Ontario Gazette. Making a WP:OSE argument because these are, in my view, strictly analogous. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per AleatoryPonderings. The state gazettes are longstanding and notable. Deus et lex (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this fails the secondary in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources needed to pass WP:GNG and just having other extremely badly sourced articles on similar things isn't a good reason to keep it. I'd suggest doing AfDs on them also. Since they clearly fail WP:GNG. While I'm not a huge fan ofWP:OSEs arguments in general, I'm even less a fan of them when the "other stuff" doesn't even meet the notability guidelines. "lets keep this non-notable thing, because of these other non-notable things" is extremely weak reasoning IMO. What it should ultimately come down to is if the subject of the AfD passes WP:GNG or not, and as things currently are this doesn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Adamant1: Fair enough, but I'm not sure that WP:GNG is the right guideline to apply to this publication or its analogues in other countries. Rather, I'd suggest that WP:NPERIODICAL—yes, just an essay, but I find it convincing—is the right guideline. Government gazettes—a non-Commonwealth example is the Federal Register—are the official reports of legislation and regulations, so they are continually use[d] as a citation in academic or scholarly works and in other government documents. Any law journal, for instance, will cite official reports of legislation or regulations. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Gazettes are important part of the workings of Australian governments. All other states have articles. Some diversity of sourcing would be useful.--Grahame (talk) 02:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Nomination withdrawn per strong Keep consensus. Thank you. // Timothy :: talk 02:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.